September 22, 2009 11:07 AM

GOP Must Focus On The Family

By
David L Miller
(National Review Online)  This column was written by Kay Hymowitz & W. Bradford Wilcox.

Here we are at debate No. 3, but has anyone heard a Republican besides Mitt Romney utter their one-time favorite word "family?" In fact, most of the top Republican presidential nominees are studiously avoiding the biggest social problem of our time, namely, family breakdown. There's a good reason for this, of course; aside from Romney, the leading candidates, whether committed to running or only flirting, are divorced, and at least one of them has a marital history that verges on the baroque. It's understandable that a presidential contender would want to avoid reminding voters about a messy personal history.

Understandable, but in the end, misguided. There is simply no way to advance the principles that have made for past Republican successes without supporting strong families. Let us count the reasons:

Reason No. 1: Limited Government. Personal liberty and limited government have always been Republican first principles. Despite the current administration's dubious service to these principles, they remain important to most Republicans. The problem for the Republican divorced candidates is that the foundation of limited government lies in strong, self-governing families. You only have to consider the last half century of social-welfare trends: just as divorce and nonmarital childbearing expanded, so too did the government programs and tax dollars needed to support them.

Welfare, still a budget drag even 11 years after welfare reform, is only the most obvious example. Isabel Sawhill at the Brookings Institution estimates that between 1970 and 1996, the growth of single-parent families increased federal welfare and food stamps expenditures by $229 billion. Today, the federal government spends more than $200 billion annually on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and Medicaid spending, and much of this spending is driven by family breakdown. Moreover, marital failure necessarily invites the government to meddle in personal relationships. This year, for instance, federal and state governments will spend more than $5 billion in efforts to identify, hunt down, and collect money from millions of nonresidential fathers across the nation and 17 million families.

Reason No. 2: Law and Order. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was an outlier when he observed over 40 years ago that crime is a marriage and fatherhood issue. Today, the idea that marriage plays a key role in turning boys into law-abiding young men has become the new social scientific consensus. One recent Princeton study found that boys who grew up with their married fathers were half as likely to spend time in jail as boys who grew up in fatherless homes. Another study by Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson agreed that family breakdown was one of the strongest predictors of "urban violence across cities in the United States." With crime rates rising again in many cities, the subject of family breakdown seems like a no-brainer.

Reason No. 3: The American Dream. Republicans have long seen themselves as guardians of the American dream, working to insure that individuals and businesses can prosper in a free society. It's clear by now that prosperity depends on strong families. At the simplest level, married couples earn more money than singles. A large body of research shows married men earning between 10 and 40 percent more than men with similar levels of education and job experience, largely because they work longer, smarter, and more responsibly than their unmarried peers. Marriage is also an important source of wealth generation. On the eve of retirement, the typical married couple has accumulated about $410,000, compared to approximately $167,000 for the never-married, and about $154,000 for the divorced.

Marriage does all this by fostering a common orientation towards the future and a sense of duty among adults, qualities that are also tremendously advantageous to their children. It's no coincidence that children of married couples, including low-income couples, are more likely to graduate high school, to go to college, and to go on to earn higher incomes than kids of single parents. To put it a little differently, marriage provides the breeding ground for children's future upward mobility.

Finally, Reason No. 4: The Vote. If Republican candidates don't find principle enough of a reason to put marriage policy at the top of their agenda, they might want to consider self-interest. Married Americans vote — and vote Republican — at significantly higher rates than do unmarrieds. In the last presidential race, for instance, hitched Americans were more than 50 percent more likely to vote than their singleton fellow citizens, and when they did, they voted for George Bush by a 15-point margin (57 to 42 percent). This is probably because the married have tended to view the party — at least they used to before Republicans became tongue-tied on all things family — as more supportive of a family-centered way of life.

In other words, Republicans have every reason — self-interest, party loyalty, and the American future — to transcend the idea that your personal history has to limit your political beliefs, and to talk about policies that would strengthen and expand the ranks of the married.

Yes, accusations of hypocrisy may fill the airwaves. But chances are Americans, almost all of whom have been touched by the family unraveling of the past 40 years, would be in a forgiving mood. At any rate, they know that while hypocrisy is bad, moral cowardice is worse.


By Kay Hymowitz & W. Bradford Wilcox
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online

National Review Online
Add a Comment See all 43 Comments
by jacksteen1 June 6, 2007 9:16 PM EDT
The Republishit Party has been bereft of morals and true Christian values since Eisenhower's golfing presidency. That airhead set the tone for the rest of the bufoons of the "party of Lincoln."

Ronnie Ragoon, drooler Emperor, aligned his party with the 'christian' reich, Falwell (happily enough, dead and in Hell today), Robertson, and the rest of the charlatans. The gun nutjob lobby also got stroked and coddled by Ronnie...in between bowls of pudding and imaginings that he was really a war hero instead of a two-bit, second-rate actor that merely portrayed heroes.

Ragoon emptied the loonie bins across the nation...those people that did not die the first Winter are still out there, living in shelters and preying upon each other. This is the Republiscum Party's dream - having poor people kill and eat each other.

Anyone who purports to be Christian simply cannot be a member or supporter of the Republishit Party. Pure and simple. They are the embodiment of evil and will surely rot in Hell - along with the pantheon of Republicrap presidents that have disgraced our Nation...and the 'evangelists' that assisted them in The Great Lie.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt June 6, 2007 8:24 PM EDT
A bunch of hypocrits who don't mind stealing money from the poor with all their tax breaks.

Posted by clestes
----------------------

I wonder every time I hear this kind of complaint who it is that is writing it.

When I was in college I studied hard, went to class and did well in my grades. My roomate partied, missed class and barely pulled D's. If you equate your "stealilng from the poor with tax breaks for the rich" mentality to my college situation, you would have had me give a portion of my grades to my partying roomate. I agree that the rich should not be able to hire the expensive tax attys to "create" ways for them to pay less tax (think John Kerry). But do not expect those who work hard to pay the tax for those who do not. A flat tax would be good, would make taxes easier for everyone and cut the IRS power over everyone.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt June 6, 2007 6:44 PM EDT
Members of the GOP should focus on their OWN family.
Posted by sparks224
------------------

I agree with this but then everyone should, both left and right.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt June 6, 2007 6:39 PM EDT
You all sicken me. You see that the GOP actually has morals and you fear that and loath that you have none so you attack inane issues that you, on the right, are not better at. You claim it terrible to want to save a family. You claim the GOP are miscreants all the while you hold the ****** Clinton as your symbol. Look at yourselves, you are sick.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt June 6, 2007 6:35 PM EDT
Romney: "I never cheated--but due to my religion if I did--it wouldn't count anyway"

Yep....family values coming from any of those candidates, would be just as hypocritical as Bush pretending to know and promote democracy. Nobody's buying those lies anymore and if the family value group tries to endorse any of them--they will be seen as frauds and hypocrites too.
Posted by toldyouso21
------------------

There you go again, assuming that you have any clue about Romney or his religion? Why bring religion into it anyway?

It is obvious you lack moral integrity and will stoop to name calling and slander to attemp to bring others down to the gutter with you.

You are ashamed of yourself and it shows.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt June 6, 2007 6:32 PM EDT
ACTUALLY, MORAL COWARDICE IS HYPOCRISY. YOU MUST BE A MORAL COWARD TO PRETEND TO BE DECENT WHILE ACTUALLY LIVING SOMETHING ELSE. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A HYPOCRITE----A MORAL COWARD.

Sometimes the ignorance of the right is breathtakingly scary.
Posted by toldyouso21
---------------------------

How does your definition there apply to your beloved Bill Clinton and his wife for staying with him solely for political power reasons?

You think it is just the right that is off kilter, the left and you are no different. You are a hypocrite for not having the moral fortitude to admit it is all people who act that way.
Reply to this comment
by tejasdemo June 6, 2007 3:32 PM EDT
Still laughin at this article. Republicans and family values are so mutually exclusive it really isnt funny but....

This article sure as hell is !
Reply to this comment
by elz523 June 6, 2007 3:02 PM EDT
It is presumptuous and hypocritical for these losers at the NRO to ignore the Democratic candidates in the race who have been dedicated to their families for decades. Let's see, Edwards, Clinton and Obama are just the first three to come to mind. Instead they focus on the hypocritical cons and say "it is alright if you personally have not been faithful to your family so long as you are willing to impose our values on everyone else. Just say family values, family values, family values and let us and the other propaganda arms of the Republican Party convince the faithful that is it what you do, but what you say that is important."
Reply to this comment
by glb1969 June 6, 2007 2:58 PM EDT
Wow, lies that are unproven scientifically. The writers sure do like to put forth guesses and suppositions like facts. Fortunately, we can see through their ignorance and lies.
Reply to this comment
by toldyouso21 June 6, 2007 2:47 PM EDT
"Yes, accusations of hypocrisy may fill the airwaves. But chances are Americans, almost all of whom have been touched by the family unraveling of the past 40 years, would be in a forgiving mood. At any rate, they know that while hypocrisy is bad, moral cowardice is worse. "

ACTUALLY, MORAL COWARDICE IS HYPOCRISY. YOU MUST BE A MORAL COWARD TO PRETEND TO BE DECENT WHILE ACTUALLY LIVING SOMETHING ELSE. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A HYPOCRITE----A MORAL COWARD.

Sometimes the ignorance of the right is breathtakingly scary.


Reply to this comment
See all 43 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook